Ebook Ebook PDF Personality 14th Edition PDF

(eBook PDF) Personality, 14th Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-personality-14th-edition/
vi Preface
in Personality Theory. The intellectual activity that is personality theory did not cease at the
close of the millennium. Investigators continue to pursue the challenges that motived the Grand
Theorists of the 20th century. Four such developments are found in within coverage of the four
theoretical perspectives that receive multi-chapter coverage in the text: psychodynamic theory,
phenomenological theory, trait theory, and social-cognitive theory. The four 21st-century theories
that are included were selected not only “on their own merits” but also because each addresses
limitations in 20th-century theorizing in a particularly direct manner. The Contemporary Devel-
opments in Personality Theory material thus is another opportunity for students to think critically.
Readers are encouraged to consider limitations in prior theorizing as a prelude to the coverage
of new developments.
In addition, Chapter 2 (The Scientific Study of People) contains a section on Contemporary
Developments in Personality Research. Readers learn about computerized text analysis methods
through which researchers infer personality characteristics by analyzing spontaneous language
use in social media.
Finally, material that previously appeared in print in Chapter 15, Assessing Personality Theory
and Research, has been moved to the online Instructor Companion Site at www.wiley.com/go/
cervone/personality14e. Because that material is a reflection on prior chapters and the state of
the professional field, it is not absolutely necessary for understanding the personality theory and
research covered in Chapters 1–14. Nonetheless, highly engaged students may wish to revisit
topics, contemplate the field, and consider ways in which they themselves can advance it by
reading C hapter 15 online.
Professor Pervin and I always hoped that Personality: Theory and Research will enable stu-
dents to appreciate the scientific and practical value of systematic theorizing about the individual,
to understand how evidence from case studies and empirical research informs the development of
personality theories, and to discover a particular theory of personality that makes personal sense
to them and is useful in their own lives.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the Psychology staff at John Wiley & Sons not only for their continued support but also
for their suggestions that have strengthened the text. I am also grateful to many students and
instructors who have sent me questions and suggestions for future coverage; feel free to keep
sending them to dcervone@uic.edu.
I also thank Dr. Walter D. Scott, of Washington State University, for giving permission to
include the case study that appears in Chapter 14. Dr. Scott was the therapist for the case, whose
assessment tools and case report were prepared collaboratively by Dr. Scott and the author.
I am particularly grateful to Professor Tracy L. Caldwell of Dominican University. Dr. Caldwell
prepared the extensive set of supplementary material available at the book’s Instructor Companion
Site at www.wiley.com/go/cervone/personality14e, suggested the “toolkit” metaphor that appears
in Chapter 1, and has provided invaluable input on both science and pedagogy that has strengthened
this text across multiple editions.
Daniel Cervone
Professor of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago
Contents
Prefaceiv
1 Personality Theory: From Everyday Observations

to Systematic Theories 1
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter, 2
Defining Personality, 3
Why Study Personality?, 4
Three Goals for the Personality Theorist, 5
Answering Questions about Persons Scientifically: Understanding Structures,
Processes, Development, and Therapeutic Change, 8
Important Issues in Personality Theory, 15
Evaluating Personality Theories, 21
The Personality Theories: An Introduction, 22
Major Concepts, 25
Review, 25
2 The Scientific Study of People 27

The Data of Personality Psychology, 29
Contemporary Developments in Personality Research: Social Media
and Language-Based Assessments 30
Goals of Research: Reliability, Validity, Ethical Behavior, 37
Three General Strategies of Research, 39
Personality Theory and Personality Research, 50
Personality Assessment and the Case of Jim, 51
Major Concepts, 52
Review, 52
3 A Psychodynamic Theory: Freud’s Psychoanalytic

Theory of Personality 53
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939): A View of the Theorist, 54
Freud’s View of the Person, 56
Freud’s View of the Science of Personality, 60
Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory of Personality, 60
Major Concepts, 84
Review, 84
vii
viii Contents
4 Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory: Applications,

Related Theoretical Conceptions, and Contemporary
Research 85
Psychodynamic Personality Assessment: Projective Tests, 86
Psychopathology, 91
Psychological Change, 95
The Case of Jim, 100
Related Theoretical Conceptions, 102
Contemporary Developments in Personality
Theory: Neuropsychoanalysis, 116
Critical Evaluation, 121
Major Concepts, 125
Review, 125
5 A Phenomenological Theory: The Personality Theory

of Rogers 127
Carl R. Rogers (1902–1987): A View of the Theorist, 128
Rogers’s View of the Person, 130
Rogers’s View of the Science of Personality, 132
The Personality Theory of Carl Rogers, 133
Major Concepts, 146
Review, 146
6 Rogers’s Phenomenological Theory: Applications,

Related Theoretical Conceptions, and Contemporary
Research 147
Clinical Applications, 148
Related Conceptions: Human Potential, Positive Psychology,
and Existentialism, 156
Developments in Research: The Self and Authenticity, 163
Contemporary Developments in Personality Theory: Personality Systems
Interaction Theory and the Integrated Self, 170
Personality Systems Interaction Theory, 171
Illustrative Research, 174
Implications for Rogers’s Self Theory of Personality, 174
Major Concepts, 179
Review, 179
Contents ix
7 Trait Theories of Personality: Allport, Eysenck,

and Cattell 180
A View of the Trait Theorists, 182
Trait Theory’s View of the Person, 182
Trait Theory’s View of the Science of Personality, 183
Trait Theories of Personality: Basic Perspectives Shared
by Trait Theorists, 185
The Trait Theory of Gordon W. Allport (1897–1967), 186
Identifying Primary Trait Dimensions: Factor Analysis, 189
The Factor-Analytic Trait Theory of Raymond B. Cattell (1905–1998), 191
The Three-factor Theory of Hans J. Eysenck (1916–1997), 195
Major Concepts, 204
Review, 204
8 Trait Theory: The Five-Factor Model and Contemporary

Developments 205
On Taxonomies of Personality, 206
The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Research Evidence, 207
Five-Factor Theory, 218
Maybe We Missed One? The Six-Factor Model, 220
Cross-cultural Research: Are the Big Five Dimensions Universal?, 221
Contemporary Developments in Trait Theory: Reinforcement Sensitivity
Theory, 224
The Case of Jim—Factor-Analytic Trait-Based Assessment, 230
The Person-Situation Controversy, 233
Major Concepts, 240
Review, 240
9 Biological Foundations of Personality 241

Temperament, 243
Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, and Personality, 248
Genes and Personality, 255
Mood, Emotion, and the Brain, 266
Plasticity: Biology as Both Cause and Effect, 270
Neuroscientific Investigations of “Higher-Level” Psychological Functions, 271
Summary, 272
Major Concepts, 272
Review, 272
x Contents
10 Behaviorism and The Learning Approaches

To Personality 273
Behaviorism’s View of the Person, 274
Behaviorism’s View of the Science of Personality, 275
Watson, Pavlov, and Classical Conditioning, 278
Skinner’s Theory of Operant Conditioning, 288
Major Concepts, 300
Review, 300
11 A Cognitive Theory: George A. Kelly’s Personal

Construct Theory of Personality 301
George A. Kelly (1905–1966): A View of the Theorist, 303
Kelly’s View of the Science of Personality, 304
Kelly’s View of the Person, 306
The Personality Theory of George A. Kelly, 307
Related Points of View and Recent Developments, 324
Major Concepts, 328
Review, 329
12 Social-Cognitive Theory: Bandura and Mischel 330

Relating Social-Cognitive Theory to the Previous Theories, 331
A View of the Theorists, 332
Social-Cognitive Theory’s View of the Person, 335
Social-Cognitive Theory’s View of the Science of Personality, 335
Social-Cognitive Theory of Personality: Structure, 335
Social-Cognitive Theory of Personality: Process, 344
Social-Cognitive Theory of Growth and Development, 349
Major Concepts, 360
Review, 360
13 Social-Cognitive Theory: Applications, Related Theoretical

Conceptions, and Contemporary Developments 362
Cognitive Components of Personality: Beliefs, Goals, and Evaluative
Standards, 363
Contents xi
Contemporary Developments in Personality Theory: The KAPA Model, 373

Stress, Coping, and Cognitive Therapy, 384
Major Concepts, 393
Review, 393
14 Personality In Context: Interpersonal Relations,

Culture, and Development Across The Course of Life 394
Interpersonal Relationships, 396
Meeting Academic and Social Challenges: Optimistic Strategies and Defensive
Pessimism, 401
Personality Development in Socioeconomic Context, 402
Personality Functioning Across the Life Span, 403
Persons in Cultures, 406
Putting Personality in Context into Practice, 411
Summary, 416
Major Concepts, 416
Review, 416
Glossary417
References429
Author Index 470
Subject Index 477
1
Personality Theory: From Everyday
Observations to Systematic Theories
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter

Defining Personality
Why Study Personality?
Three Goals for the Personality Theorist
Answering Questions about Persons Scientifically: Understanding
Structures, Processes, Development, and Therapeutic Change
Important Issues in Personality Theory
Evaluating Personality Theories
The Personality Theories: An Introduction
Major Concepts
Review
C h a p t e r Fo c us
I can be selfish, but I believe it is because I try to be perfect. Perfect in the sense
I want to be an “A” student, a good mother, a loving wife, an excellent employee,
a nourishing friend. My significant other thinks I try too hard to be “Mother Teresa”
at times—not that that is a bad thing. But I can drive myself insane at times. I have
led a hard childhood and adulthood life; therefore I believe I am trying to make up
for all the bad times. I want to be productive, good—make a difference in my world.
I’m a real jackass. I’m intelligent enough to do well in school and study genetics but
have no idea when to shut up. I often am very offensive and use quite abrasive lan-
guage, although I’m shy most of the time and talk to few people. I’m sarcastic, cruel,
and pompous at times. Yet I’ve been told that I’m kind and sweet; this may be true,
but only to those I deem worthy of speaking to with some frequency. I’m very fond of
arguing and pretty much argue for fun.
I have always been described by others as cynical and/or as having integrity. I would
describe myself as inquisitive, philosophical and justice-oriented. I craze organization,
1
2 Personality Theory: From Everyday Observations to Systematic Theories
but my room is the messiest one I have seen thus far … like the room of a toddler. I am
introspective but I don’t reach many conclusions about myself. I seem very passive and
mellow – but I am just too tired to get fired up.
This person is shy at times. They tend to open up to some people. You never know
when they’re happy or sad. They never show their real feelings, and when they do it’s
so hard for them. They did have a trauma experience that closed them up—where
they seem to be afraid to let their real self show. They are funny and do have a lot of
fun and are fun to be around, but at times it’s hard to know if they’re really having a
good time. The person is loved by a lot of people and is an extremely giving person
but doesn’t like “seriousness.”
These sketches were written by people just like you: students beginning a course
on the psychology of personality. When I teach the class, on Day 1, I ask people to
describe their personality and that of a friend. Two things happen. First, students can
answer the question; when asked to “describe your personality,” they rarely say “I
don’t know how to do that; it’s only the first day of personality class.” Second, as you
see here, their answers are often detailed, nuanced, and insightful—so much so that
one is tempted to ask: Is the class filled with personality theorists?
In a sense, it is. We’re all personality theorists. We ask about ourselves and others:
“Why am I so shy?” “Why are my parents so weird?” “Am I so shy because my parents
are so weird?” Even before taking a personality class, we devise answers that are sophis-
ticated and often accurate. You already hold ideas about personality and put them to
work to understand the events of your day, to anticipate the events of your next day, and
to help yourself and your friends handle the stresses, bumps, and bruises of life.
“But”—you may be asking yourself—“if I already know so much about personality,
what will I learn in this class? In other words, “What is the professional personality psy-
chologist doing that I’m not doing already?” This chapter addresses this question by
introducing the scientific goals and methods of psychologists who study personality.
But first, we will define our key term and comment on the status of this scientific field.
Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter

1. How do scientific theories of personality differ from the ideas about persons that you
develop in your daily life?
2. Why is there more than one personality theory and in what general ways do the theories
differ?
3. What are personality psychologists trying to accomplish; in other words, what aspects of
persons and individual differences are they trying to understand and what factors are so
important that they must be addressed in any personality theory?
Defining Personality 3
Defining Personality
Personality psychology is concerned with the dynamics of intra-individual functioning and the coher-
ence and thematic unity of particular lives.
Block (1992, p. xiii)
You already have an intuitive understanding of “personality.” Is a formal definition even neces-
sary? It is because—as so often happens with words—different people use the word “personal-
ity” in different ways. The differences can create confusion in both an introductory course and
the professional field (Cervone, 2005). Let us therefore examine some ways in which the word
“personality” is used. We then will provide a formal definition of the term.
In one common usage, people say, for example, that “Ellen DeGeneres has a lot of personal-
ity” or “My psych professor has no personality.” Personality here means “charisma”. This is
not the way that personality psychologists use the word; this book is most definitely not about
“Charisma: Theory and Research”.
Professional psychologists use the word “personality” in two ways. Specifically, they propose
two types of personality variables, that is, two types of concepts for understanding people and
how they differ.
1. Dispositions. One type of variable is personality dispositions. In general, in the sciences,
dispositions are descriptions; dispositional terms describe what a person or thing tends to
do. A glass vase tends to break if you bump into it. “Fragile” is a dispositional term that
describes this tendency. Some types of turtles tend to live very long lives. “Longevity”
describes this tendency (turtles are “high in longevity” compared to many other species). In
the study of personality, psychologists try to identify the personality dispositions that best
describe individuals and the major ways that people differ from one another.
People have a lot of tendencies: sleeping when tired, eating when hungry, bored when
reading a textbook. Which count as personality dispositions? You can figure this out for
yourself. Think about how you use the word “personality,” and you will quickly realize that
you employ the word to describe psychological characteristics with two qualities: “person-
ality” tendencies are (a) enduring and (b) distinctive.
• By “enduring,” we mean that personality characteristics are at least somewhat consist-
ent across time and place. If one day you find yourself acting a little strange—maybe
because you are stressed about something—you likely would not say that your “person-
ality has changed” on that day. You use the word “personality” to describe characteristics
that endure for long periods of time: months and years and perhaps your entire life.
• By “distinctive,” we mean that personality characteristics differentiate people from one
another. If asked to describe your personality, you would not say, “I tend to feel sad when
bad things happen but happy when good things happen.” Everybody feels sad/happy
when bad/good things happen. These tendencies are not distinctive. But if, like one of
our opening sketches, someone is “shy most of the time … sarcastic, cruel, and pomp-
ous at times … yet kind and sweet to those deemed worthy of speaking to,” then that is a
distinctive—and is therefore a (rather complex) personality disposition.
2. Inner Mental Life. A second set of concepts refers to inner mental life. Personality psy-
chologists study the beliefs, emotions, and motivations that comprise the mental life of
the individual. Conflicts between alternative desires; memories that spring to mind and fill
you with emotion; emotions that interfere with your ability to think; long-term goals that
make otherwise mundane tasks meaningful; self-doubts that undermine efforts to achieve
these goals—these and more are the features of mental life targeted by the personality
psychologist.
A technical term—used in the quote above, from the personality psychologist Jack
Block—for this scientific target is “intraindividual functioning”. Personality psychology is
not only concerned with differences between people or interindividual differences. Person-
ality psychologists are fundamentally concerned with the interplay of thoughts and emo-
tions within the mind or intraindividual mental functioning.
Many branches of psychology study mental life. What’s unique about personality psychol-
ogy? One distinctive feature is the field’s concern with how multiple aspects of mental life
are connected to one another or “cohere” (Block, 1992; Cervone & Shoda, 1999). Compare
this interest to the primary interests in other branches of psychology. A cognitive psycholo-
gist may study memory. A social psychologist may study self-concept. An educational psy-
chologist might address perfectionistic tendencies at school. But the personality psychologist
is concerned with how these distinct systems cohere in the life of an individual. You just saw
such personality coherence in the opening quote above; the person’s memory (of a hard life)
was connected to her self-concept (being a productive person who makes a difference to the
world), which, in turn, explained her perfectionism (“striving to be perfect”).
A useful concept to describe these connections is “system”. A system is any connected
set of interacting parts that comprise whole. Personality can be thought of as a system.
Distinct psychological qualities—beliefs, values, emotions, goals, skills, memories—influ-
ence one another and comprise the person as a whole (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Nowak,
Vallacher, & Zochowski, 2005)
We now are in a position to define personality. In psychology, personality refers to psycho-
logical systems that contribute to an individual’s enduring and distinctive patterns of experience
and behavior. As you can see, the definition combines the two meanings above. Ideally, the per-
sonality psychologist will be able to identify psychological systems (aspects of inner mental life)
that help to explain people’s distinctive experiences and actions (their dispositions).
Why Study Personality?

Why take a course in personality? One way to answer this question is to compare the material in
this course with other courses in psychology. Consider intro psych—the typical Psych 101. Stu-
dents are sometimes disappointed with its content. The course does not seem to be about whole,
intact people. Instead, one learns about parts of people (e.g., the visual system, the autonomic
nervous system, long-term memory, etc.) and some of the things people do (learning, problem-
solving, decision-making, etc.). “Where in psychology,” one reasonably might ask, “does one
learn about the whole, intact person?” The answer is here, in personality psychology. Personality
theorists address the total person, trying to understand how different aspects of an individual’s
psychological life are related to each other and relate also to the society and culture in which the
person lives (Magnusson, 2012). One reason for studying personality psychology, then, is that
it addresses psychology’s most complex and interesting topic: the whole, integrated, coherent,
unique individual.
Another reason is the impact of personality psychology on the wider intellectual world. Per-
sonality theories have been influential not only within scientific psychology. They also have
influenced society at large. In fact, they have been so influential that they probably have affected
your thinking even before you enrolled in this course. Have you ever said that someone has
a big “ego”? Or called a friend an “introvert”? Or asked whether a slip-of-the-tongue reveals
Three Goals for the Personality Theorist 5
something about the hidden beliefs of the speaker? If so, you were already using terms and ideas
that come from personality psychology.
Here are three indications of the influence of personality psychology:
• At the end of the 20th century, scholars (Haggbloom et al., 2002) identified the most influen-
tial scientific psychologists of the 20th century. Who made the list? In the top 25, the majority
were investigators who contributed to the psychology of personality.
• The end of the century was also the end of the millennium. A television network polled his-
torians and others to determine the 100 most influential people—of any sort—of the past
1000 years. The only psychologist to make the list—and easily, at #12—was a personality
theorist: the psychodynamic theorist, Sigmund Freud (A & E’s Biography: 100 Most Influ-
ential People of the Millennium https://wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus150/biography100.html).
• In 2007, a statistical analysis identified the highest-impact book authors in the humanities or
social sciences (fields including not only psychology, but also political science, philosophy,
linguistics, literary criticism, sociology, and cultural studies). The singularly most-cited liv-
ing author was a personality theorist: the social cognitive theorist Albert Bandura (https://
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/most-cited-authors-of-books-in-the-humanities-
2007/405956.article).
Here, in personality theory and research, you will find the most influential ideas in the history
of the psychological sciences.
Three Goals for the Personality Theorist

Now let’s return to an earlier question: What is the professional personality psychologist doing
that you, the reader, are not?
Consider what you do. You interact—in person and electronically—with friends and family.
You observe people not only in person, but also in movies and videos, and (through writing) in
books, magazines, and blogs. You think about yourself: your strengths and weaknesses, hopes
and plans, and responsibilities to others. And you learn how others do these same things, when
they tell you about themselves, their friends and families, and their hopes and dreams. Somehow,
from this everyday observations, you develop thoughts about human nature and the main ways
that people differ from one another.
For most people, that is plenty of thinking about personality. But personality psychologists are
not “most people.” Psychologists who study personality pursue three goals that distinguish their
activities from the nonprofessional who is interested in persons.
1. Scientific Observation
Personality psychologists do not observe people casually. Instead, they pursue scientific obser-
vation. The features that make observations “scientific” vary from one science to another. In
personality psychology, three stand out:
1. Study diverse groups of people. Psychologists cannot base personality theories merely
on observations of people they happen to run into in daily life. They must observe diverse
groups of individuals, to ensure that conclusions about personality represent the lives the
world’s citizens. This need is particularly critical because people from different nations and
cultures may differ in ways that become apparent only once they are studied within their
specific life contexts (Cheng, Wang, & Golden, 2011). Not only nations and cultures, but
also subcultures—associated with ethnicity, spiritual beliefs, or economic circumstances—

may display distinctive psychological characteristics (Oyserman, 2017).
In today’s personality science, researchers often succeed admirably in reaching such
diverse participants group. For example, one research team summarized self-descriptions of
personality from participants in 56 nations (Schmitt et al., 2007). Another studied personal-
ity tendencies across regions of the globe and found that more mild climates foster more
outgoing (sociable, open-minded) personality styles. The ability to study global popula-
tions is made easier by a technological advance. By analyzing “big data”—large bodies of
information acquired by recording computer users’ preferences and statements on social
media and other internet sites (Bleidorn, Hopwood, & Wright, 2017)—researchers can get
information about people throughout the world.
These trends, however, are recent. Before the 21st century, the majority of participants
in psychological research were from Europe and North America—which contain less than
20% of the world’s population, combined. This is significant in that all of the major theories
of personality developed prior to the present century.
2. Ensure that observations of people are objective. A second requirement is “objectiv-
ity”. Information that is not influenced by the subjective personal opinions and desires of
the person getting the information is called “objective”. If you step on a scale and it tells
you your weight, the scale is “objective”: It is not influenced by your own subjective desires
for a different weight. Psychologists strive for scientific methods that provide information
about personality that is objective.
Objective methods promote a key goal of science: replicability. Whenever one scientist
reports a finding, others should be able to replicate it; in other words, they should be able
to repeat the procedures and get the same result. Using an example above, if one team of
researchers found that mild climates predict outgoing personality styles, you should be able
to repeat their procedures and find the same thing.
It turns out that replicability is difficult to achieve—so much so that psychology recently
has experienced a “replication crisis” (Shrout & Rodgers, 2017). Researchers have sometimes
found it hard to replicate well-known findings. Although these difficulties primarily have
occurred in branches of the field other than personality psychology, the overall question of rep-
licability is significant in our field—particularly so because one valuable source of evidence
in personality psychology cannot, even in principle, be replicated: case studies. Case studies
are in-depth examinations of a particular individual (see Chapter 2). For example, a therapist
might report a case study of a client in therapy. As a general rule, case studies cannot be rep-
licated; if you read a clinical case study, you cannot contact the client and repeat the study.
3. Use specialized tools to study thinking, emotion, and neurobiological systems.
Psychologists observe people, just as you do. But they also make observations using spe-
cialized tools. These tools often are designed to overcome specific obstacles to obtaining
scientific information. Here are two examples. Suppose that you want to learn about the
personality characteristics of large numbers of people. An obstacle is the sheer cost and
difficulty of contacting people and having them complete personality tests. A specialized
tool researchers use to overcome this obstacle is computer software that assesses personality
characteristics by analyzing the language use in social media (Park et al., 2014). A second
example is that, if you try to study people’s feelings—their moods and emotions—by asking
them how they feel, some people are reluctant to discuss their feelings openly. Researchers
have developed tools to assess moods and emotions without ever explicitly asking people to
talk about themselves (Quirin, Kazén, & Kuhl, 2009). For example, if research participants
are asked to describe the emotion expressed in an abstract image, their descriptions reveal
their own emotional state (Bartoszek & Cervone, 2017).
Three Goals for the Personality Theorist 7
2. Scientific Theory
The fundamental goal of science is to explain events (Salmon, 1989). Scientists develop explana-
tory frameworks—that is, theories—to explain their scientific observations.
What exactly is a scientific theory? The word “theory” can be used in different ways. For
example, you might say that you “have a theory that my friend Liliana is anxious because she’s
really attracted to some guy and hasn’t told him.” Even if you are right, your idea about Liliana is
not, in and of itself, a scientific theory of Liliana’s personality. Scientific theories of personality
have three distinctive qualities; they are systematic, testable, and comprehensive.
1. Systematic. As we have noted, you already have developed lots of different ideas about
different people. But you probably have not gone to the trouble of relating all of them to
one another. Suppose that on one you say “Liliana is anxious because she’s really attracted
to some guy and hasn’t told him” and on another you say “My mother gets anxious all the
time; she must have inherited it.” If so, you usually do not have to relate the statements
to each other; people don’t force you to explain why one case had an interpersonal cause
(relationship breakup) and another had a biological cause (inherited tendencies). But per-
sonality psychologists must relate all their ideas to one another, to create a systematically
organized theory.
2. Testable. If you tell a friend “My parents are weird,” your friend is not likely to say
“Prove it!” But the scientific community says “Prove it!” any time a scientist says anything.
The personality psychologist must develop theoretical ideas that can be tested by objective
scientific evidence. This is true of any science, of course. But in personality psychology,
attaining the goal of a testable theory can be particularly difficult. This is because the field’s
subject matter includes features of mental life—goals, dreams, wishes, impulses, conflicts,
emotions, unconscious mental defenses—that are enormously complex and inherently dif-
ficult to study scientifically.
3. Comprehensive. Suppose that you have just rented an apartment and are considering
inviting in a roommate to share rent costs. When deciding who to invite, you might ask
yourself questions about their personalities: Are they fun loving? Conscientious? Open-
minded? And so forth. Yet there also are a lot of other questions that you do not have to
ask: If they are fun loving, is it primarily because they inherited this quality or learned it?
If they are conscientious now, are they likely to be more or less conscientious 20 years
from now? When thinking about persons, you can be selective, asking some questions
and ignoring others. But a personality theory must be comprehensive, addressing all sig-
nificant questions about personality functioning, development, and individual differences.
This is what distinguishes personality theory from theorizing in most other branches of
psychology. The personality theorist cannot be satisfied with studying “parts” of persons.
The personality theorist is charged with comprehensively understanding the person as
a whole.
3. Applications: From Observation and Theory to Practice

As the quotes from students that open this chapter make clear, people formulate insightful ideas
about personality prior to studying personality psychology. Yet, in everyday life, people rarely
convert their personal insights into systematic applications. You may recognize that one friend’s
problem is a lack of self-confidence and that another’s is an inability to open up emotionally.
Yet, after realizing this, you probably don’t design therapies to boost people’s confidence in
themselves or enable them to open up. Personality psychologists, however, do this. They aim not
only to develop testable, systematic theory but also to convert their theoretical ideas into benefi-
cial applications.
In fact, many of the personality theorists you will learn about in this book did not start out in
personality psychology. Instead, they often first worked as counselors, clinical psychologists, or
physicians. Their personality theories were efforts to understand why their clients were experi-
encing psychological distress and how that distress could be reduced.
In summary, personality psychologists aim to (1) to observe people scientifically, (2) develop
theories that are systematic, testable, and comprehensive, and (3) to turn their research findings
and theoretical conceptions into practical applications. It is these goals that distinguish the work
of the personality psychologist from that of the poet, the playwright, the pop psychologist—or
the student writing personality sketches on the first day of class. Lots of people develop insight-
ful ideas about the human condition. But the personality psychologist is uniquely charged with
organizing theoretical ideas into comprehensive, testable, and practical theories.
Throughout this book, we evaluate the personality theories by judging how well they achieve
these goals. This book’s final chapter, a commentary on the current state of the field that can be
found on the text’s companion website www.wiley.com/college/cervone, judges how successful
the field of personality psychology as a whole has been in achieving these five aims.
Answering Questions about Persons Scientifically:

Understanding Structures, Processes, Development,
and Therapeutic Change
Personality psychologist addresses four distinct topics; in other words, there are four issues
that every personality theory must address. We can introduce them with a simple “mental
experiment”.
Think of someone you know well, for example, a good friend or family member. Two things
you know for sure are:
1. Whatever the individual’s personality is like today, it likely was similar last month and last
year, and likely will be similar next month and next year. You might say that personality is
“stable” over time.
2. Despite this stability in personality, the individual’s thoughts, feelings, and actions also
change. Sometimes they are happy and other times sad. Sometimes they are in control of
their emotions and sometimes they “fly off the handle.”
Two things you do not know absolutely for sure, but that probably think are correct, are:
3. If you saw the person when they were a toddler or a grade schooler, their personality
would not be the same as it is now. Their personality likely has changed, or “developed,”
over time.
4. If the person suddenly experiences a period of psychological distress—for example, a period
of depression or anxiety—they probably could “bounce back” from this. In fact, there might
be something you could do to improve the person’s psychological well-being.
These four points correspond directly to the topics addressed by personality psychologists.
The psychologist introduces formal scientific terms to describe the topics, but the topics them-
selves are fundamentally the same. They are: (1) personality structure—the enduring “build-
ing blocks” of personality; (2) personality process—dynamic changes in thinking, emotion, and
Answering Questions about Persons Scientifically 9
motivation that can occur from one moment to the next; (3) growth and development—how we
develop into the unique person each of us is, and (4) psychopathology and behavior change—
how people change and why they sometimes resist change or are unable to change. We introduce
these topics now. You will see them again, over and over, in later chapters.
Structure
People possess psychological qualities that endure from day to day and from year to year. The
enduring qualities that distinguish individuals from one another are referred to as personality
structures.
Structural concepts in personality psychology are similar to structural concepts you are famil-
iar with from other fields. For example, from study of human biology, you already know that
there are enduring biological structures including individual organs (the heart, the lungs) and
organ systems (the circulatory system, the digestive system). Analogously, personality theorists
hope to identify enduring psychological structures. These structures may involve emotion (e.g.,
a biological structure that contributes to good or bad mood), motivation (e.g., a desire to achieve
succeed or to be accepted by others), cognition (e.g., a negative belief about oneself that con-
tributes to states of depression, Beck, 1991), or skills (e.g., a high or low level of “social intel-
ligence,” Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987).
You will see throughout this textbook that the different personality theories provide differ-
ent conceptions of personality structure. A more technical way of saying this is that the theories
adopt different units of analysis when analyzing personality structure (Little, Lecci, & Watkin-
son, 1992). The “units of analysis” idea is important, so we will illustrate it.
As you read this textbook, you may be sitting in a chair. If we ask you to describe it, the chair,
you may say that it “weighs about 15 pounds,” or that it “is made of wood,” or that it “is unattrac-
tive”. Weight, physical substance (the wood), and attractiveness are different units of analysis for
describing the chair. Although the units may be related in some way (e.g., wood chairs may be
heavier than plastic ones), they plainly are distinct.
The general idea is that virtually anything can be described in more than one way—that is,
through more than one unit of analysis. Personality is no exception. The different theories of
personality you will learn about in this book use different units of analysis to analyze personality
structure. The resulting analyses may each be correct, in their own way. Yet each may provide
different types of information about personality.
We will illustrate this point with an example: a difference between “trait” and “type” units of
analysis.
One popular unit of analysis is that of a personality trait. The word trait generally refers to a
consistent style of emotion or behavior that a person displays across a variety of situations. Some-
one who consistently acts in a way that we call “conscientious” might be said to have the trait of
“conscientiousness”. A term that is essentially synonymous with trait is disposition; traits describe
what a person tends to do or is predisposed to do. You probably already use trait terms to describe
people. If you say that a friend is “outgoing,” “honest,” or “disagreeable,” you are using trait terms.
There is something implicit—something that “goes without saying”—when you use these terms.
If you say that a friend is, for example, “outgoing,” the term implies two things: (1) the person
tends to be outgoing on average in his/her own daily behavior (even if, on occasion, he/she does
not act this way), and (2) the person tends to be outgoing compared to others. If you use trait terms
this way, then you are using them in the same way as most personality psychologists do.
Traits usually are thought of as continuous dimensions. Like the biological traits of height
and weight, people have more or less of a given trait, with most people being in the middle of
the dimension.
A different unit of analysis is type. A personality “type” is a clustering of many different traits.
For example, some researchers have explored combinations of personality traits and suggested
that there are three types of persons: (1) people who respond in an adaptive, resilient manner to
psychological stress; (2) people who respond in a manner that is socially inhibited or emotion-
ally overcontrolled; and (3) people who respond in an uninhibited or undercontrolled manner
(Asendorpf, Caspi, & Hofstee, 2002).
Types, unlike traits, may be thought of as distinct categories. In other words, people of one
versus another type do not simply have more or less of a given characteristic but have categori-
cally different characteristics.
© The New Yorker Collection 2007 Mick Stevens from cartoonbank.com.

Process All Rights Reserved.
Just as theories can be compared in terms of how they treat personality structure, one can com-
pare their treatment of personality processes. In any scientific field, a “process” is something
that changes over time; as the philosopher Wittgenstein put it, we use the word “process” to
refer to psychological phenomena that “have duration and a course” (Wittgenstein, 1980, §836).
A personality process thus is a psychological activity (involving thoughts, feelings, or actions)
that may change over relatively brief periods of time.
Even though you are the same person from one day to the next, you experience rapidly chang-
ing personality processes all the time. One moment you are studying. The next, you are distracted
by thoughts of a friend. Next, you’re hungry and getting a snack. Then you’re feeling guilty about
not studying. Next, you’re feeling guilty about overeating. This rapidly changing flow of moti-
vation, emotion, and action is what personality psychologists attempt to explain when studying
personality processes.
Personality processes are often referred to by a more technical name: personality “dynam-
ics”. When using this term, psychologists are borrowing a word from a different field of
Answering Questions about Persons Scientifically 11
study: physics. In physics, “dynamics” refers to the ways in which physical objects move across
some period of time (e.g., how an object moves toward Earth if you drop it). In personality,
“dynamics” refer to psychological processes (involving thinking, emotion, or motivation) that
change over time (Cervone & Little, 2017).
Study of personality processes, or dynamics, is where the contemporary science of personality
started. European psychologists of the late 19th century became interested in how different parts
of mental life—for example, memory of past events and conscious experiences in the present—
become connected to one another in the self-concept of an individual person (Lombardo &
Foschi, 2003). Throughout the first two-thirds of the 20th century, dynamic processes remained
a centerpiece of personality theory. In the late 20th century, personality psychology’s focus of
attention shifted somewhat, with more researchers studying the stable differences between peo-
ple rather than the personality dynamics of the individual. But in the current field, the study of
personality dynamics is, in a sense, “making a comeback” (Rauthmann, in press). Researchers
increasingly explore dynamic changes in personality dynamics that occur across the diverse cir-
cumstances of an individual’s life.
Just as in the study of personality structure, one finds that, in the study of personality pro-
cesses, different theorists employ different units of analysis. The differences commonly involve
different approaches to the study of motivation. Personality theorists emphasize different moti-
vational processes. Some highlight basic biological drives. Other theorists argue that people’s
anticipations of future events are more important to human motivation than are biological drive
states experienced in the present. Some theorists emphasize the role of conscious thinking pro-
cesses in motivation. Others believe that most important motivational processes are unconscious.
To some, the motivation to enhance and improve oneself is most central to human motivation.
To others, such an emphasis on “self-processes” underestimates the degree to which, in some
cultures of the world, self-enhancement is less important to motivation than is a desire to enhance
one’s family, community, and wider world. In their explorations of motivational processes, the
personality theorists you will read about in this book are attempting to bring contemporary sci-
entific evidence to bear on classic questions about human nature that have been discussed and
debated in the world’s intellectual traditions for more than two millennia.
Growth and Development

Personality theorists try to understand not only what individuals are like in the here and now,
but how they got this way. They strive, in other words, to understand personality development
(Mroczek & Little, 2006; Specht, 2017).
The overall study of personality development encompasses two challenges that are relatively
distinct. One is to characterize patterns of development that are experienced by most, if not
all, persons. A theorist might, for example, posit that all individuals develop through a distinct
series of stages, or that certain motives or emotional experiences are more common at one versus
another age for most persons. A second challenge is to understand developmental factors that
contribute to individual differences. What factors cause individuals to develop one versus another
personality style?
In the study of individual differences, a classic division of possible causes separates “nature”
from “nurture”. We may be who we are because of our biological nature, that is, because of bio-
logical features that we inherited. Alternatively, our personality may reflect our nurturing, that is,
our experiences in our family and in society. In a joking manner, we might say, “If you don’t like
your personality, who should you blame: Your parents, because of the way they nurtured you?
Or your parents, because of the genes they passed on to you that shaped your biological nature?”
At different points in its history, psychological research has tended to highlight either nature
or nurture as causal factor. In the middle parts of the 20th century, theorists focused heavily on
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Increase in 1900–1901.—Reference to Frost’s chart for
Massachusetts shows that there was also a rise in the curve around
1900. At this time influenza was quite widely disseminated. Early in
1901 the Marine Hospital Service made a canvass of all the states and
several foreign countries to determine the epidemic prevalence of
influenza. The results of the canvass were published in the Public
Health Reports. The records lack the detail, particularly in the
description of clinical symptoms, that is desirable in arriving at an
identification, but the universal agreement from all individuals
reporting, in the comparatively high morbidity and remarkably low
mortality, together with the widespread distribution, and the
duration of the local epidemic leaves little doubt as to the identity.
Influenza was reported present in October of 1900 in Los Angeles,
Milwaukee and New Orleans. In November it became prevalent in
Toledo and Cincinnati and in New York City. In December the
disease was present in Chicago, Albany, Philadelphia, San Francisco,
Denver, Baltimore, Grand Rapids, Columbus, O., Portland, Me.,
Detroit, Albuquerque and Omaha. In January it was reported in New
Haven, Boston, Washington, D. C., Indianapolis, Louisville, Ky.,
Wilmington, Del., Portland, Ore., and Juneau, Alaska.
Although the disease was mild, in some localities a high proportion
of the population was attacked. Thus in New Haven it was estimated
that 10 per cent. developed the disease, and in Los Angeles 20 per
cent., while in Wilmington, 40,000 were estimated to have become
ill. In certain small towns in Texas the incidence was especially high.
In Pittsburgh, Texas, ten per cent.; Laredo, 15 to 20 per cent.;
Hearne, 50 per cent.; and El Paso, 50 per cent. were attacked. The
duration of the epidemic in most localities was from four to six
weeks.
Thus we see that in October, November and December of 1900 and
January of 1901 there was a widespread epidemic affecting all parts
of the United States. Many additional records in the Public Health
Reports coming from small towns have not been included in this
summary.
At the same time an attempt was made to determine the
prevalence in foreign countries and letters were sent to the various
United States Consulates. It was discovered that the disease was
mildly epidemic in Denmark in October, in Berlin in November, in
Cuba, British Columbia, Ontario, Egypt, Paris, Mexico and the West
Indies in December; in Flanders, Porto Rico, Honolulu, in January of
1901; in Malta in February, 1901; and in London and Ireland in
March of that year. The following countries reported that they had no
influenza at the time: Windward Islands, Jamaica, Bahamas, Brazil,
India, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Persia, Philippine
Islands, Spain, Switzerland. The disease was reported as being not of
epidemic prevalence in the following localities: Marseilles, Paris,
Bremen, Hamburg, Mainz, Stuttgart, Bristol, London, Liverpool,
England as a whole, Scotland, Amsterdam, Naples, Constantinople.
Reports from Switzerland and from Brazil stated that there had
been no influenza since the pandemic period 1889–1893. The death
rate per 100,000 in Glasgow from influenza for 1896 was recorded as
six; for 1897, twelve; for 1898, fifteen; 1899, twenty-two and for
1900, twenty-seven.
The disease was present in Lima, Peru in March, 1900, and at
Malta in the same month. In Prague it was stated that ten per cent. of
the population had been attacked in the winter of 1901. In Sivas,
Turkey, fifty per cent. of a population of 50,000 were estimated to
have been taken ill within the winter months. It was reported from
Valencia, Spain, that there had been four or five visitations of
influenza since the preceding pandemic, each recurring invasion
presenting a milder and less expansive form than its predecessor.
Very few deaths had been recorded as directly due to influenza, but
an increased mortality followed the epidemics. In normal times the
average mortality was ninety deaths per week. After a visitation of
influenza the number had increased to as much as 160 per week. The
population numbered 204,000.
Period from 1901 to 1915.—Between 1900, with its wide
distribution of a very mild influenza, and 1915, there is very little
mention of epidemic prevalence of the disease. References which
appeared in the Public Health Reports during the interval are
characterized chiefly by their brevity, and by the absence of
descriptive detail. They should nevertheless be included.
In October of 1901 there was some increase of the disease in the
Hawaiian Islands, 110 cases being reported on the island of Kauai.
At the same time, C. Williams Bailey reported a mild form of
influenza existing in Georgetown, S. C., which was first considered to
be hay fever in consideration of the presence of the rice harvest
season, but which was finally decided, after careful investigation, to
be true influenza.
On July 21, 1902, the U. S. Consul at Canton, China, telegraphed
that influenza “was almost epidemic, plague sporadic in Canton.”
In 1903 the disease was reported as apparently prevalent at New
Laredo, Texas.
Surgeon Gassaway, of the Marine Hospital Service, reported from
Missouri, December 14, 1903, as follows: “There is a very decided
increase in the number of cases of influenza in this vicinity. Two have
been admitted within the last few days to this hospital, and several
cases have appeared among the patients under treatment. In these
cases the onset is sudden and the disease appears principally, at least
at first, to be confined to the nose and throat.”
Measles and influenza were reported prevalent in Barbados, West
Indies, during the month of December, 1904.
Sturrock describes a quite typical local epidemic in a British
institution in 1905.
Influenza was epidemic in Guayaquil and various other places in
Ecuador during the months of June and July, 1906.
Selter speaks of a true local epidemic of a disease clinically
resembling influenza which occurred in 1908 and extended over the
territory from France to the Rhine.
Hudeshagen mentions having examined bacteriologically cases of
influenza in the year 1914.
Ustvedt relates his experience at the Ullevaal Hospital up to
September, 1918. Since 1890 there had been cases reported every
year from the high marks of 10,461 cases in Christiania in 1890 and
5,728 in 1901 to the lowest figure, 138 in 1906. “The cases listed as
influenza in the last few years may have been merely a catarrhal
fever. This is the more probable as the cases were restricted to the
winter months, while influenza usually occurs at other seasons.”
Jundell believes that influenza is endemic at Stockholm, Sweden,
hundreds of cases being reported there each year. During the years
1912–1919 Pfeiffer’s bacillus has been found in ten per cent. of those
cases in which the diagnosis seemed certain.
A current comment in the Journal of the American Medical
Association in 1912 remarks that epidemics of coryza, sore throat,
and bronchitis usually have been called influenza or grip because of
the characteristic contagiousness and the infectivity, the persistence
of the symptoms, and the tendency to prostration and mental
depression. But this diagnosis has not been satisfactorily confirmed
by bacteriologists. An epidemic according to the Journal, which
occurred in Boston and which was called sore throat, was studied by
Richardson and others. They traced the contagion to a streptococcus
which apparently was spread by means of milk. Müller and Seligman
had recently carried out a study of an influenza epidemic among
children in Berlin and concluded that the causative organism was a
streptococcus, differing so much from the ordinary germ that they
used the term “grip streptococcus.” Davis and Rosenau, according to
the comment, had made a bacteriologic study of a recent epidemic of
sore throat in Chicago, and had demonstrated as the exciting agent a
streptococcus of peculiar characteristics, which in many respects
resembled the organism described by Müller and Seligman. The
Journal noted that these three epidemics occurring during the years
1911 and 1912 in widely separated communities were all caused by
the streptococcus, and cautioned against the proneness to call all
such epidemics grip. Today the predominance of the streptococcus
would not necessarily rule out influenza in our minds.
In the winter of 1913, C. L. Sherman had occasion to study
carefully fourteen cases of so-called influenza in the vicinity of
Luverne, Minnesota. Bacteriologic smears and cultures were made
from the throat and sputum in all cases. Bacillus influenzae was
found in two of the fourteen; pneumococcus in four and
streptococcus in all. Tubercle bacilli were found in one case. The
onset of the disease was invariably abrupt. The fever in all cases
ranged between 101° and 104°; symptoms indicative of infection of
the upper respiratory tract were always present. There was more or
less sore throat in all. There was either cough at the onset or else it
appeared within 48 hours. Headache was complained of by twelve of
the fourteen; pains in the back and in the limbs by thirteen, and
nervous symptoms by six. Prostration out of all proportion to the
fever and other symptoms prevailed. Two developed an otitis media
and the streptococcus was isolated from the purulent discharge in
both cases. One patient had a complicating empyema, and one an
acute arthritis. Sherman also concluded that we are prone to call too
diverse diseases influenza.
Walb stated in 1913 that at Bonn during the preceding years there
had been numbers of cases of a febrile affection which seemed to be
typical influenza, but for which the pneumococcus appeared to be
responsible. They were never able to isolate the influenza bacillus,
and according to their statement the Hygienic Institute at Bonn, as
well as that at Berlin, had not “encountered an influenza bacillus
within the preceding ten years.”
C. T. Mayer described in 1913 a case of influenza in Buenos Ayres
which is of particular interest in view of one of the symptoms,
cyanosis, which was so prominent a feature in 1918. This appears to
have been an isolated case. The diagnosis wavered between miliary
tuberculosis and pneumonic plague, because of the high fever and
intense cyanosis, with nothing to explain the cyanosis on the part of
the heart. There were signs of severe congestion of both lungs, and
notable enlargement of the spleen. Bacteriologic examination was
negative except for the presence of Bacillus influenzae and
Micrococcus catarrhalis. The patient subsequently improved rapidly,
and the lungs were entirely normal after thirty days, thus ruling out
the other two diseases.
A London letter to the Journal of the American Medical
Association dated February 5, 1915, runs as follows:
“Since the outbreak of the war the public health has been
remarkably good, but the record is now being threatened in the case
of London, at any rate, by an epidemic of influenza.
“The gastric symptoms which distinguished last year’s epidemic
are absent. The disease is most infectious. Whenever it has seized the
individual it has usually run through the entire household.
“Whole offices have succumbed, and as the mildness of the attack
lures the sufferer to continue his normal occupation, the disease has
a full opportunity of extending. A large number have resulted in
pleuro-pneumonia; otherwise the chief symptoms are headache,
fever, tonsillitis.”
Telling and Hann describe another clinical diagnosis of influenza,
the diagnosis being concurred in by Sir James Goodhart and Sir
Clifford Allbutt. The onset was absolutely sudden at a supper party
on November 10, 1912. The patient had a slight rigor, and was
compelled to go to bed. In the night he had a longer and more severe
rigor, with a temperature of 103°. On the following morning he
dressed, but another chill sent him back to bed with a temperature
still 103°, pulse 110, regular, and remarkably dicrotic. There was no
cough and no sore throat. Another chill occurred in the evening. On
November 12th the patient had two chills, the temperature
remaining steadily at 103° to 104°. The patient complained much of
nausea but did not vomit. On November 13th the temperature
remained up, there was no chill on this day; the spleen was large and
easily felt for the first time. On the 14th note was made that there
was no headache. On the 15th, 16th and 17th the temperature began
to fluctuate. On the 18th there were two severe rigors, and by the
19th the temperature suddenly fell to normal, with drenching sweat.
Throughout there was nothing to suggest pneumonia, and typhoid
fever appears to have been successfully ruled out.
An epidemic of influenza which prevailed in the city of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, from December to February of 1907 and 1908, has
been described by J. A. Lichty. He says that the epidemic was as
widespread, though probably not quite as severe, as the pandemic of
1889. Whole families, including servants and all associated with the
household, were afflicted in rapid succession. The onset was sudden
and severe, the usual symptoms of pain, all over, being most
pronounced. The temperature did not go unusually high, nor did it
seem to be in accord with the severity of the symptoms when the
patient took to his bed. In typical cases the attack lasted from two to
three or four days. Peculiar to this epidemic seemed to be the general
complaint of sore throat. Upon examination the throat rarely showed
any other evidence of an abnormal condition than a rather dark
cyanotic blush, which was most intense over the tonsils and faded
out over the roof of the mouth. This was rarely associated with any
swelling or fever. Sinusitis and otitis media seem to have been the
two most frequent complications. The disease appeared to be
particularly fatal for chronic invalids. It was highly contagious. Many
of those physicians who were frequently exposed to the disease fell
victims.
At the same time C. H. Jones described an epidemic of the same
disease in Baltimore. The symptoms were described as headache,
backache, limb-ache, with a slight elevation of temperature, seldom
more than 102°. Catarrhal symptoms developed secondarily and
were not so prominent a feature as in former epidemics. There were
some gastric symptoms, usually consisting of vomiting and nausea.
Jones quotes no statistics, but feels sure that the infection was more
extensive than at any period since 1895.
Coakley and Dench describe throat and ear complications as they
saw them in New York. From this we may assume that the disease
was present at the same time in New York City.
The following chart, derived from the U. S. Vital Statistics Report
shows the increase in the death rates from influenza in 1900 and
1901; that of 1907 and 1908, and finally an increase to 26.4 per
100,000 in 1916, which reflects the epidemic beginning in the latter
part of 1915:
Influenza and Pneumonia Mortality in the United States
Registration Area for Each Year Since 1900.
Annual death rates per 100,000.
Year. Combined
Pneumonia. Influenza.
diseases.
1900 158.6 22.8 181.4
1901 133.5 32.2 167.7
1902 124.7 10.1 134.8
1903 122.6 18.5 141.1
1904 136.3 20.2 156.5
1905 115.7 18.8 134.5
1906 110.8 10.3 121.1
1907 120.8 23.3 144.1
1908 98.8 21.3 120.1
1909 96.3 13.0 109.3
1910 147.7 14.4 162.1
1911 133.7 15.7 149.4
1912 132.3 10.3 142.6
1913 132.4 12.2 144.6
1914 127.0 9.1 136.1
1915 132.7 16.0 148.7
1916 137.3 26.4 163.7
At best our information for these years is unsatisfactory. It is
greatly to be desired that individuals who have access not only to the
current medical literature, but also to the vital statistics and other
records for all countries possessing reliable records, and who are
versed in the newer mathematical methods of demography, establish
definitely the influenza prevalence and distribution during these
interpandemic years. The difficulty in this work is that mortality
statistics are unreliable and morbidity statistics are lacking.
Influenza in 1915–1916.—Until the end of 1915 there was no
widespread distribution in the United States similar to that of 1900
and 1901, but at that time there developed a widespread epidemic in
this country of similar or possibly slightly greater severity than that
of fifteen years previously. Reference to the last table will show that
during 1916 the annual death rate from influenza as reported in the
United States Vital Statistics reached the rate of 26.4 per 100,000.
According to V. C. Vaughan the literature of that time shows that this
epidemic originated in the West, first attracting attention at Denver,
and gradually spread over the country.
Dr. Dublin of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company gives the
following table in which the deaths from influenza and pneumonia
during the months of December, 1914, and January, 1915, are
compared with deaths from the same cause during the months of
December, 1915, and January, 1916:
Deaths reported as due Deaths reported as due
Name of city to influenza. to pneumonia.
In 1915–16. In 1914–15. In 1915–16. In 1914–15.
Baltimore 57 12 219 101
Cincinnati 81 2 105 84
New Orleans 97 44 35 29
New York 494 62 2,067 1,207
Philadelphia 324 62 564 272
Providence 38 3 31 31
Total 1,091 185 3,021 1,724
Dublin states that the Industrial Department of the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, covering the entire country and embracing
ten millions of people, had deaths in the periods above mentioned, as
follows:
In December, 1914, and January, 1915, the number of deaths attributed
to influenza was 165
While in the corresponding months of 1915–1916 the deaths attributed
to influenza were 957
The deaths attributed to pneumonia in December, 1914, and January,
1915, were 1,468
While the number of deaths attributed to the same cause in December,
1915, and January, 1916, were 2,563
Coffey and others have reported an epidemic of influenza at

Worcester, Mass. during the first three weeks of January, 1916.
During the first three weeks of January, 1915, there were reported in
that city twenty-two deaths from respiratory diseases, making a total
of 14.9 per cent. of the total deaths. In the same period of 1916 there
were reported ninety-three deaths from acute respiratory diseases in
the same population.
Two of the more complete descriptions of the epidemic of the year
1915–16 are those by Mathers, and by Capps and Moody. Mathers
reports that: “During the winter of 1915–1916 the United States was
visited by a severe epidemic of acute respiratory infections which
resembled in every detail the great epidemic of 1890. This outbreak
was apparently first noticed in the Middle Western States, and it
spread rapidly over the entire country, taking a heavy toll of human
life. December and January were the months in which these
infections were most prevalent, and the epidemic had almost
completely lost its impetus by March, 1916. During the height of this
epidemic in Chicago, sixty-one cases of the disease were studied
bacteriologically, and the results form the basis of this paper.”
Mathers found hemolytic streptococci in forty-six instances, in all
of which they predominated. Green producing streptococci were
found thirty times, with one pure culture, and pneumococci thirty
times with four pure cultures. Staphylococci were isolated in fifty
cases; Micrococcus catarrhalis in six, and Friedländer’s bacillus in
one case. The influenza bacillus was found in only one instance, and
then in small numbers. The majority of the patients were studied
early in the course of the disease, and in the earliest, hemolytic
streptococci were almost constantly found, especially in the throat.
In the atypical pneumonia which followed many of the attacks of
grip, hemolytic streptococci predominated. In none of these was the
Bacillus influenza found.
Mathers reported that coincident with the epidemic among
humans there was an epizootic of so-called influenza among horses.
The symptoms are very similar to that of the disease among humans.
He isolated a streptococcus as the predominating organism in the
horses. The streptococci from human and equine sources, although
similar in many characteristics, differed widely in pathogenicity, and
seemed to be highly parasitic for the specific hosts.
Capps and Moody found that in man most cases began rather
abruptly, with coryza, pharyngitis, laryngitis, or bronchitis.
“The chief complications were inflammation of the accessory
sinuses of the head, and bronchopneumonia, the latter being
responsible for most of the fatalities. None of these symptoms taken
alone would justify the distinctive name of grip. But the widespread
and almost simultaneous onset of this fairly uniform symptom group
and the rapid cessation of the epidemic after a few weeks reminded
physicians generally of the great grip pandemic of 1889–1890. This
resemblance was further strengthened by the unusual prostration
lasting days or weeks after even mild attacks. The older practitioners
can recall no similar epidemic during the twenty-five years
intervening between 1890 and this year. The numerous epidemics of
septic sore throat have all been entirely different in their
symptomatology, and all were restricted to certain localities. The
term “grip,” therefore, seems justified from a clinical standpoint.
“The public health reports offer evidence of an unusual prevalence
of pneumonia in the larger cities. Nicolas calls attention to the fact
that the incidence of grip was greatest in those cities in which the
mortality from pneumonia was most strikingly increased.”
Capps and Moody found that as a rule the white blood counts in
the individuals sick with influenza were 10,000 or less. A number
showed true leucopenia. Less frequently there was a leucocytosis up
to 15,000 or higher.
Influenza between 1916 and 1918.—Zinsser cites Dr. George
Draper, who believes that he observed at Fort Riley in the winter of
1917 epidemic cases of influenza. He believes that for Europe too
there is evidence that influenza was endemic during the years
preceding the great outbreak, and that a number of minor epidemic
explosions had occurred in the years just preceding 1918:
“MacNeal who has investigated military reports particularly, states
that small epidemics occurred in the British Army in 1916 and 1917.
A chart constructed by him from the American Expeditionary Force
reports shows that a considerable rise in reported influenza cases
took place in November and December, 1917, and in January, 1918,
gradually declining toward spring. MacNeal, compiling the data
available in the office of the Chief Surgeon, A. E. F., states that the
influenza morbidity reported per 100,000 for succeeding months in
1917, were as follows:
July 321
August 438
September 404
October 1,050
November 1,980
December 2,480
“Robertson, who studied many of the secondary pneumonias

which came to autopsy at this time found an unusual type of lobular
pneumonia in which Pfeiffer bacilli were frequently found. In many
of these cases the organisms could be obtained from the nasal
sinuses and antra. Similar findings were reported by British
bacteriologists (Hammond, Rolland and Shore, and Abrahams,
Hallows, Eyre and French), who studied the cases that occurred in
the reports by Austrian physicians in reference to outbreaks of
typical influenza on the Austro-Russian front early in 1917.
“There seems little doubt, therefore, that for some years before the
pandemic of 1918 influenza was endemic in many parts both of
Europe and of America. As early as 1915–1916 Frost finds evidences
of limited epidemic outbreaks in the United States. During the winter
immediately preceding the true beginning of the pandemic small
outbreaks occurred among the allied troops in France, the British
troops in England and probably among American troops gathered in
home concentration camps as well. MacNeal in a summary of the
conditions prevailing among American troops in France concludes
that epidemic influenza in that country originated from the endemic
foci there existing, and that the disease was probably carried from
Europe to the United States by shipping. The former assumption;
namely, that the epidemic occurrence of the disease may have been
due to the fact that an enormous and concentrated newly introduced
material of susceptibles may have been lighted into flame at the
numerous endemic smoulders, may well be correct. The latter,
however, concerning the transportation of the disease from Europe
to America may justly be questioned. For, in the first place, Frost’s
studies have shown that prepandemic outbreaks were quite as
frequent in the United States as in Europe during 1915 and 1916, and,
though we have no proof of this, there is reason to believe that
influenza was prevalent in concentration camps during 1917.”
Carnwath, after remarking that the epidemic began in the British
Army in France in April, 1918, says that according to the reports of
the Influenza Committee of the Advisory Board this was not the first
time that Pfeiffer’s bacillus had appeared in the armies. On the
contrary, it had frequently been found in cases of
bronchopneumonia, especially during the winter of 1916–1917. It is
doubtful, however, whether much importance, from the
epidemiologic point of view, attaches to these sporadic findings of
the Pfeiffer bacillus.
Influenza was reported in the year 1917, but this year, as well as
the epidemic of 1916, becomes involved in a determination of the
date of onset of the great pandemic of 1918.
The Pandemic of 1918.
The date and site of onset of the great pandemic are subjects
concerning which there is no conclusive information. There have
been small outbreaks of clinical influenza with epidemic tendencies
at one place or another during nearly all of the intervening years
since 1889. In all of them the question is open as to whether they
were true influenza, and also assuming that some were true
influenza, how many of them should be so included. There are some
who believe that the increase of morbidity following the measles
epidemic in the United States Army camps in the winter of 1917–18
is genetically associated with the great pandemic. In short, there is
no one point in the last few years at which we may say that influenza
which had previously been non-existent started at a focus and spread
throughout the world.
It follows from the experience of 1889 that we should at least
attempt to find an endemic focus and to follow the progression of the
disease. It is safe to say that once having become pandemic the
disease spread as it did thirty years previously. Experience in this
country, where the autumn spread began in the New England States
and continued West and South; knowledge of the late spread to
remote localities; the fact that the disease first appeared in England,
etc. in sea coast towns; the introduction of the influenza into new
countries at seaport towns, after the arrival of infected ships, all
coincide well with the past history.
But which of the several local epidemics of the preceding years was
the direct progenitor of the great pandemic? In order to follow more
clearly the development of the facts we will record here the various
hypotheses that will come up for consideration as to the site of origin
of the disease.
1. Influenza is endemic in some one locality, such as Turkestan in
Asia, from which place the disease spreads throughout the earth at
intervals, after having acquired in some way greatly increased
virulence. The local outbreaks of interepidemic times are not due to
the virus which causes the great pandemics and should be called
pseudo-influenza in contrast to influenza vera. Following the
pandemic it is true, however, that for a succession of years local
outbreaks occur, due to the pandemic virus which has been left
deposited in small endemic foci. These disappear in the course of a
few years.
2. The second hypothesis is similar to the first, except that in it is
considered the possibility of there being more than one endemic
focus, at least two, one in the old world and one in the new. Although
Leichtenstern believed in the first hypothesis he did not deny the
possibility of the second.
“There have been in the past several well described influenza
epidemics limited to North America. Furthermore true pandemics
have occurred at the same time in North America and in Europe. We
can suggest the hypothesis that there is a permanent endemic focus,
just as in central Asia and Russia, existing in the southern part of
North America. The following facts concerning the last pandemic
period favor this idea.
“As early as May, 1889, influenza began in Athabasca (British
North America) and in the summer of 1889, in Greenland. It is
especially interesting to hear of an extensive influenza epidemic
which in the middle or toward the end of December, 1889, broke out
in the Northwest Territory of British North America, in Manitoba, in
the Island of Vancouver, similar to that in the east of Canada and
Quebec. A spread of the epidemic, which attacked Boston and New
York on December 17th, to the above territories, far away and
connected by very poor transportation facilities, is certainly
improbable, especially in consideration of the time at which the two
epidemics occurred.
“We are told that the invasion and the outbreak of influenza in
these vast territories occurred at practically the same time at such
widely separated places as Fort MacLeod, Saskatchewan, Prince
Albert and other military posts, and furthermore in isolated Indian
camps and tribes between which there was little or no
communication.
“These facts also indicate that we are considering primary endemic
pandemics analogous to the one which broke out in July, 1889, in
Central Asia.”
3. The virus of influenza is more or less uniformly distributed
throughout the world. We may say that it is endemic in many
localities, as is the case with the meningococcus. Quite frequently in
one locality or another the virus acquires increased virulence and
causes a small local epidemic which may even spread to adjoining
territories. It is possible that the virus in two or more separated
localities may become more invasive simultaneously, thus causing
widely separated and unrelated outbreaks. As a rule the virulence
does not become so great as to cause a true pandemic, but at rare
intervals, usually of decades, or thereabouts, the epidemic virus
becomes so greatly enhanced, perhaps from passage to new territory
and through non-immune individuals, that it eventually commences
on its wild career around the earth. Perhaps the pandemic variety
usually comes from one particular locality among the many endemic
spots. Perhaps always from the same locality or perhaps at times
even simultaneously from many different ones. It is possible even
that an increased virulence develops simultaneously in all localities.
This third hypothesis develops into a discussion as to whether the
small interpandemic epidemics are true influenza or some other
disease.
Again, Leichtenstern, although he does not favor it, recognizes the
possibility of this theory:
“Whether the small local epidemics reported by Kormann in
Coburg in 1878 and by O. Seifert in Würzburg in 1883 are the same
as the true epidemic influenza is at present uncertain. Some of the
complications, such as swelling of the neck glands, and especially
frequently parotitis, purpura, scurvy, indicate that the epidemic in
Russia, in 1856–1858, reported by Kasin, was not the true influenza.
“When W. Zülzer writes in 1886 of an epidemic in Berlin in which
many thousands of individuals were attacked, the question might
arise, is this the same influenza which three years later passed
through the entire world and which in Berlin was believed by the
same physicians to be a new disease?
“The evidence is better in the case of the epidemic reported by von
den Velden in 1874–75. First, because of the complication with
pneumonia and especially because at the same time the disease
sprang up in several places in France, South Germany and the Rhine
Provinces. It is very doubtful whether epidemics described in 1855
and 1862 in Iceland, in 1870 in Philadelphia, in 1875 in Scotland, in
1876 in the Fiji Islands, in 1887 in several places of England, in
October, 1889 in Natal, in November, 1889 in Jamaica and Prince
Edward Island, was the true influenza, even though the
complications of pneumonia in the last named epidemics favor this
assumption. As regards the influenza epidemic which attacked
specially the school children of Pleshey and Great-Waltham and from
which fifty per cent. became ill in November and December, 1889,
whereas the pandemic was known to have begun there in January,
1890—the high percentage of school children that were attacked
renders the conclusion that this was influenza very doubtful.
“It is an entirely different matter concerning the last epidemic in
which the epidemiologic compilations, based on retrospective
diagnoses suggest that in many places of Germany the ‘first case’ of
even small epidemic outbreaks was observed as early as the summer
and autumn of 1889; in other words, several months before the
outbreak of the true pandemic in December.”
Leichtenstern believed that the so-called catarrhal fever and
epidemics of “cold” which some have been accustomed to call grip or
influenza are not the true disease, although he admits that there is no
pathognomonic sign by which the diseases may be differentiated. He
expected that search for the influenza bacillus which had recently
been discovered would enable investigators to determine by its
presence or absence whether or not these local epidemics are true
influenza.
This, of course, would depend on the proof that the influenza
bacillus is the cause of the disease. If the many local influenza
outbreaks which Hirsch has collected in his exhaustive historical
tables are the same disease as true influenza, then the picture of
influenza must be considered as rather protean. Leichtenstern adds
that this is a possibility which from present information we cannot
deny. He writes: “If such is the case we must give the following
epidemiological definition of influenza: Influenza is a specific,
infectious disease usually occurring epidemically which, however, is
endemic over the entire earth, as indicated by outbreaks of cases,
and which, after years and decades have passed, breaks out in
epidemic proportions. It is recognized nearly every year in one or
another place on the earth where it becomes epidemic. From time to
time from some point or center, or from several points, as for
instance simultaneously in the old and new world, and for reasons
unknown to us, an enormous increase in virulence of the specific
virus occurs and with it a great increase in the contagiousness of the
disease. Those are the times when influenza spreads in mighty
epidemics over wide stretches of land and portions of the earth, or
over the whole earth. Our common epidemic influenza or grip,
occurring practically isolated or in very small outbreaks, belongs to
the same type of disease as the pandemic variety, but is due to a
mitigated form of the causative organism, one of decreased virulence
and of shorter viability.
“Provisionally, however, we will hold until the proof has been
obtained by bacteriological methods that influenza nostras and
influenza pandemica are two entirely different diseases, just as are
cholera nostras and asiatica. Accordingly, we will divide the diseases
designated as influenza in the following way:
“1. Influenza vera, caused by the Pfeiffer bacillus.
“2. The endemic-epidemic influenza vera which arises from the
germ remaining after the spread of the influenza pandemic and
which is caused by the same germ, the bacillus of Pfeiffer. The
duration of this endemic state of influenza vera may last years in
single localities.
“3. The endemic influenza nostras, or pseudo-influenza or
catarrhal fever, commonly called grip, a disease sui generis. The
germs causing this disease are at present as little known as are those
of cholera nostras.”
Parkes, in 1876, recognized these possibilities: “The exact spot has
not been made out. Two opinions prevail. First, one focus; second,
many foci. Each nation, in turn, attributes the disease to its neighbor
and from the names so given one can follow the direction of the
epidemic.” Noah Webster believed that in 1698, 1757, 1761 and 1781
it originated first in America. Hirsch believed that some of the
epidemics had probably originated in North America.
We find then that after the pandemic of the last century the same
epidemiologic questions had arisen that have come into such
prominence during the present period. As a rule those who have
quoted the epidemiologists of 1890 to 1900 have mentioned the first
hypothesis and have failed to allude to the fact that the other two
were considered. So we see that the subject was by no means settled
even at that time, and that if we should discover that the 1918
pandemic cannot be traced to a single endemic focus our results will
not be absolutely contradictory to those of the last century.
Returning to a consideration of the period 1916–1918, we observe
from reference to Frost’s diagram that in the spring of 1918 there was
a sharp and general rise in mortality from influenza and pneumonia.
Frost reports that in the larger cities on the Atlantic seaboard this
increase occurred generally during January, February and March,
when pneumonia mortality normally reaches its maximum. The
increase was not so evident in all these cities as it was in New York
City. In the rest of the country, especially in the Central and Western
States, the increase occurred in April, a month during which
pneumonia mortality is generally on the decline, and was sufficient
to constitute an unmistakable departure from the normal. The
increased mortality rate extended quite generally into May and in
some areas still longer. This is the first increase after 1916 that is
pictured in the mortality statistics for the country at large.
There are some who believe that they saw influenza in mild form
in the United States army in the year 1917. V. C. Vaughan has
investigated this possibility and from a study of the sick and
wounded charts decided that there was no relation between influenza
and the pneumonia which was prevalent in 1917, and which usually
was secondary to measles, being caused by the streptococcus in the
majority of localities. The lack of association between influenza and
pneumonia in 1917 and the direct association in 1918 is well brought
out by a comparison of the figures in the two following charts,
prepared by V. C. Vaughan:
Pneumonia as a Sequel to Respiratory Diseases.
(All troops in United States in 1917.)
No. of cases Per cent. of
Primary
No. of cases. followed by cases followed
diseases.
pneumonia. by pneumonia.
Measles 47,573 2,075 4.37
Scarlet Fever 1,966 54 2.75
German Measles 8,982 39 0.43
Bronchitis 41,233 20 0.049
Influenza 32,248 19 0.059
Meningitis 1,027 13 1.27
Tonsillitis 43,021 7 0.016
Pulmonary
6,799 6 0.088
tuberculosis
Laryngitis 4,633 2 0.043
Diphtheria 1,163 1 0.086
Mumps 21,725 0 0.000
Pharyngitis 8,096 0 0.000
Influenza and Pneumonia in Last Four Months of 1918.

Number of cases of influenza 338,343
Number of cases of influenza followed by pneumonia 50,700
Number of deaths from influenza-pneumonia 17,700
Stallybrass, who has studied the influenza and pneumonia deaths

in Liverpool, England, since the 1889 pandemic, states that in every
year there had been reflected in the curves evidence of periodic
increase in deaths from influenza and pneumonia, and he states that
from 1914 onward there has been a progressive increase in the
annual number of influenzal deaths with the single exception of 1917.
It becomes evident that we cannot with the information at hand
find any one locality in which the disease was prevalent sufficiently
ahead of the pandemic and to the exclusion of other localities, so that
we might determine accurately the site of origin. The next step will
be, then, to discover as accurately as possible the date at which
various communities were first definitely attacked by the great
pandemic, and to search out the locality first affected.
Date of First Increased Prevalence in
Various Localities.
From table II which gives the earliest recorded dates of increased
prevalence in different localities, we can gain a fairly accurate idea as
to the direction and manner of spread of the disease during the
pandemic. Influenza was first noticed in the United States early in
March, 1918. By the end of the month it had become more
disseminated in very mild form over many of the States east of the
Mississippi and a few West of that line. The following month the
disease appeared in France. In the American Expeditionary Forces in
France it first appeared at the base ports which were receiving troops
from the United States. During this month the disease had reached
the allied Western front, the German front had become infected and
probably the disease had started on its travel inward into enemy
country. In May the disease was reported present in Scotland, Spain,
Greece and Egypt. In June England became infected, as also
Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Norway. In this month the
disease had reached as far as South America and India. In China, on
the 15th of June, there was reported an epidemic of a disease
resembling dengue which affected fifty per cent. of the population in
Chefoo and Shanghai. This disease may well have been influenza.
During July the disease had spread through Germany, appearing
according to German reports in the cities toward the West earlier
than in Berlin and other more Eastern cities, including Vienna. In
July the disease was present in other countries of Europe and was
again reported in China and India.

Ebook Ebook PDF Personality 14th Edition PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Ebook PDF Personality 14th Edition PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(eBook PDF) Personality, 14th Edition

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

1 Personality Theory: From Everyday Observations

2 The Scientific Study of People 27

3 A Psychodynamic Theory: Freud’s Psychoanalytic

4 Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory: Applications,

5 A Phenomenological Theory: The Personality Theory

6 Rogers’s Phenomenological Theory: Applications,

7 Trait Theories of Personality: Allport, Eysenck,

8 Trait Theory: The Five-Factor Model and Contemporary

9 Biological Foundations of Personality 241

10 Behaviorism and The Learning Approaches

11 A Cognitive Theory: George A. Kelly’s Personal

12 Social-Cognitive Theory: Bandura and Mischel 330

13 Social-Cognitive Theory: Applications, Related Theoretical

Contemporary Developments in Personality Theory: The KAPA Model, 373

14 Personality In Context: Interpersonal Relations,

Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter

Questions to be Addressed in this Chapter

Why Study Personality?

Three Goals for the Personality Theorist

also subcultures—associated with ethnicity, spiritual beliefs, or economic circumstances—

3. Applications: From Observation and Theory to Practice

Answering Questions about Persons Scientifically:

© The New Yorker Collection 2007 Mick Stevens from cartoonbank.com.

Growth and Development

Coffey and others have reported an epidemic of influenza at

“Robertson, who studied many of the secondary pneumonias

Influenza and Pneumonia in Last Four Months of 1918.

Stallybrass, who has studied the influenza and pneumonia deaths

You might also like